Requiring peer-reviewed articles discriminates against indigenous academics: law professor

[bigfield]

Maybe you should revisit this subject when there are multiple cases in existence, and you can present a recurring pattern of behaviour.

There are, of course, multiple cases in existence where affirmative action mania has discriminated against people due to their ethnicity. I have documented many over the years on this board.

There is very little connection between the story in your OP and the cases you provide below. The firefighter cases below are all examples of a government body choosing to discriminate in favour of minorities; in the OP you present a case where the institution has demonstrated the opposite behaviour by not giving preferential treatment to a minority individual.

See, for example, these White firefighters who were discriminated against in promotions because of their ethnicity here.

The Latino firefighters who did not risk declining a promotion a third time (I wouldn't either), when it was made clear to them they would be denied promotions if they declined once again. They declined the first two times because they were being promoted ahead of others who ranked higher in the promotion exams.

In fact, the amount of discrimination against White men is quite staggering. The linked paper references 32 out of the 35 discrimination lawsuits filed over a decade were by White men alleging discrimination. The paper, by the way, uses the ludicrous term 'reverse discrimination', as if there could be any such thing.

Unlike the OP, the cases above actually do present a recurring pattern of behaviour. In each case, white firefighters were passed over for promotion so that minorities could be promoted ahead of them.

In the first case and the third case--by which I refer to the Ricci decision only and not the rest of the lawsuits referred to in the paper--the department invalidated promotion exams because the results did not allow them to promote any/enough minority applicants. In the second case, Latino firefighters allege that the department offered them promotions in place of white firefighters who has served longer.

The cases all share the following in common: in order to increase minority representation in the higher ranks of the departments, the departments denied promotions to eligible white candidates who, in two cases, had even taken the exams and scored the highest.

But at least one Federal judge supports racial discrimination, ordering the NYC fire department to institute racial quotas:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/fed...sponding-minorities-who-failed-entrance-exams

On July 5 [2012] in Brooklyn, Nicholas G. Garaufis, a Clinton-appointed judge for the Eastern District of New York, issued a ruling that requires two of every five newly hired fireman to be black and one of every five, Hispanic -- until the department has fulfilled the court-ordered quota of 186 black and 107 Hispanic hires.

The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division is responsible for prosecuting cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The DOJ claims the written exams had an “unlawful disparate impact,” causing fewer minorities to be hired.

Quotas are a clumsy cure for the disparate impact of evaluation processes. In finding disparate impact, the judge has shown that the recruitment process are flawed and must be revised in order to be fair and meritocratic, and then at the same time enforces a recruitment policy--race quotas--that prevents candidates from being selected based on merit. Maybe he never learned that two wrongs don't make a right.

Putting aside the quotas, there is a recurring pattern between the FDNY case and two of the cases above: white applicants, whether entry-level or officer, perform better than minority applicants on written exams, and written exams represent most of the total exam score. So it's possible that there is disparate impact in the evaluation processes used by other departments such as those you've provided.

The FDNY entrance exam has since been revised, replacing the written component with a computer-based test: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcas/downloads/pdf/noes/201202000000.pdf

Suppose the entrance and promotion exams in these fire departments require a degree of written communication skill that is not justifiably related to a candidate's merit. It that is in fact the case, then minority applicants are unnecessarily penalised for their comparatively poor ability to do the written exams. By revising the exams and de-emphasising the written component, the departments' evaluations may become more meritocratic. This would be in line with the goal of affirmative action, which is to remove unfair barriers to employment for minorities.

Simply characterising these cases as 'affirmative action mania' is not insightful at all. There are many victims: deserving white applicants who have been denied career advancement, and minority applicants who have been denied advancement (or even recruitment) because the exams place an unnecessary emphasis on written communication. Affirmative action, as it was legislated by Eisenhower, should not produce either of these outcomes; it should prevent disparate impact and produce fair outcomes without resorting to quotas.

 

[Metaphor]

There is very little connection between the story in your OP and the cases you provide below. The firefighter cases below are all examples of a government body choosing to discriminate in favour of minorities; in the OP you present a case where the institution has demonstrated the opposite behaviour by not giving preferential treatment to a minority individual.

But the fact that the academic was able to bring the case to suit does illustrate my point.

But at least one Federal judge supports racial discrimination, ordering the NYC fire department to institute racial quotas:

Legal discrimination does not make it moral or desirable.

Quotas are a clumsy cure for the disparate impact of evaluation processes. In finding disparate impact, the judge has shown that the recruitment process are flawed and must be revised in order to be fair and meritocratic, and then at the same time enforces a recruitment policy--race quotas--that prevents candidates from being selected based on merit. Maybe he never learned that two wrongs don't make a right.

Putting aside the quotas, there is a recurring pattern between the FDNY case and two of the cases above: white applicants, whether entry-level or officer, perform better than minority applicants on written exams, and written exams represent most of the total exam score. So it's possible that there is disparate impact in the evaluation processes used by other departments such as those you've provided.

The FDNY entrance exam has since been revised, replacing the written component with a computer-based test: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcas/downloads/pdf/noes/201202000000.pdf

Suppose the entrance and promotion exams in these fire departments require a degree of written communication skill that is not justifiably related to a candidate's merit. It that is in fact the case, then minority applicants are unnecessarily penalised for their comparatively poor ability to do the written exams. By revising the exams and de-emphasising the written component, the departments' evaluations may become more meritocratic. This would be in line with the goal of affirmative action, which is to remove unfair barriers to employment for minorities.

I agree, but these exams did not spring, fully-formed, from the void. They are designed specifically because they reflect merit.

If there were another objective evaluation process that just as strongly predicted performance, then that would be permissible to use.

Simply characterising these cases as 'affirmative action mania' is not insightful at all. There are many victims: deserving white applicants who have been denied career advancement, and minority applicants who have been denied advancement (or even recruitment) because the exams place an unnecessary emphasis on written communication.

That's assuming that the 'emphasis' is unnecessary and unrelated to performance.

Affirmative action, as it was legislated by Eisenhower, should not produce either of these outcomes; it should prevent disparate impact and produce fair outcomes without resorting to quotas.

Affirmative action cannot prevent disparate impact if there are different distributions within pools of candidates.

 

[bigfield]

But the fact that the academic was able to bring the case to suit does illustrate my point.

I think the BC Human Rights tribunal is being too patient and generous with this disingenuous law professor, but as far as wastes of money go, it's not a big deal at all. Plus, I'd rather a Human Rights tribunal erred on the side of being generous to a potential victim rather than being too hasty to dismiss.

But at least one Federal judge supports racial discrimination, ordering the NYC fire department to institute racial quotas:

Legal discrimination does not make it moral or desirable.

That was poor grammar on my part. I do not consider the quotas to be moral or desirable.

Quotas are a clumsy cure for the disparate impact of evaluation processes. In finding disparate impact, the judge has shown that the recruitment process are flawed and must be revised in order to be fair and meritocratic, and then at the same time enforces a recruitment policy--race quotas--that prevents candidates from being selected based on merit. Maybe he never learned that two wrongs don't make a right.

Putting aside the quotas, there is a recurring pattern between the FDNY case and two of the cases above: white applicants, whether entry-level or officer, perform better than minority applicants on written exams, and written exams represent most of the total exam score. So it's possible that there is disparate impact in the evaluation processes used by other departments such as those you've provided.

The FDNY entrance exam has since been revised, replacing the written component with a computer-based test: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcas/downloads/pdf/noes/201202000000.pdf

Suppose the entrance and promotion exams in these fire departments require a degree of written communication skill that is not justifiably related to a candidate's merit. It that is in fact the case, then minority applicants are unnecessarily penalised for their comparatively poor ability to do the written exams. By revising the exams and de-emphasising the written component, the departments' evaluations may become more meritocratic. This would be in line with the goal of affirmative action, which is to remove unfair barriers to employment for minorities.

I agree, but these exams did not spring, fully-formed, from the void. They are designed specifically because they reflect merit.

If there were another objective evaluation process that just as strongly predicted performance, then that would be permissible to use.

I imagine that was the objective of introducing Exam 2000--a test that produces more accurate predictions of performance by getting rid of the interference caused by the written test.

Simply characterising these cases as 'affirmative action mania' is not insightful at all. There are many victims: deserving white applicants who have been denied career advancement, and minority applicants who have been denied advancement (or even recruitment) because the exams place an unnecessary emphasis on written communication.

That's assuming that the 'emphasis' is unnecessary and unrelated to performance.

By emphasis I'm referring to the fact that the written component had a weight of at least 60% of an applicants' total score in some department promotion exams. In the FDNY, the written test had to be passed lest the applicant would not even proceed to the physical testing.

I inferred the lack of necessity from two things:
1. The DOJ claimed that the tests 'did not adequately determine who was or was not qualified for the job of entry-level firefighter.'
2. The FDNY replaced the written exam with a computer-based test that was approved by the court.

http://www.justice.gov/crt-fdny/faqs#claims_us

If the written exam could be replaced by a CBT that is deemed to be adequate where the written exam was not, then it's evident that the written communication skills tested by the old exam were unnecessary. One can also guess that other departments have made the same mistake and should remove unnecessary requirements to use written communication skills in their exams.

Affirmative action, as it was legislated by Eisenhower, should not produce either of these outcomes; it should prevent disparate impact and produce fair outcomes without resorting to quotas.

Affirmative action cannot prevent disparate impact if there are different distributions within pools of candidates.

True, but it can remedy evaluation practices that unnecessarily penalise some applicants due to group differences in skills unrelated to job performance. That leads to fairer outcomes for applicants and greater predictive power for evaluators. Affirmative action tends to focus on a shortlist of characteristics (race, gender identity, sexuality, religion etc.) that identify a person as a member of a disadvantaged group, but the principle behind (awarding jobs based on merit, not prejudice or arbitrary criteria) can be applied to much broader variety of personal characteristics.

 

[Derec]

True, but it can remedy evaluation practices that unnecessarily penalise some applicants due to group differences in skills unrelated to job performance. That leads to fairer outcomes for applicants and greater predictive power for evaluators. Affirmative action tends to focus on a shortlist of characteristics (race, gender identity, sexuality, religion etc.) that identify a person as a member of a disadvantaged group, but the principle behind (awarding jobs based on merit, not prejudice or arbitrary criteria) can be applied to much broader variety of personal characteristics.

But affirmative action is the polar opposite of awarding jobs based on merit. It awards jobs based on things like race and gender.

 

[SimpleDon]

Random thoughts reading through the comments.

• The lady took a job for which she was unable or unwilling to meet the basic requirements.
• Even failed research serves a function.
• The goals of a research university are not too surprisingly research and the production of a few good researchers out of the student body.
• It is unreasonable for the lady to take on the role of a professor at a research university and to not do any research.
• It is unreasonable for the students at a research university to expect the university to be a trade school spoon feeding them a craft.
• The students should expect the professors and the university to teach them how to learn and to think independently.
• This is why the research universities are more selective for both students and faculty.
• It is reasonable for our multicultural societies to have doctors, lawyers and other professionals who deal directly with the public to reflect the cultural makeup of the society as a whole.

This is not a very interesting subject, a one off oddball.

It is not an interesting topic if the lady did not do any research. I could be wrong, but I believe she is claiming she does not have any peer-reviewed publications which does not mean she did not perform any research.

Good point.

 

[SimpleDon]

It is not an interesting topic if the lady did not do any research. I could be wrong, but I believe she is claiming she does not have any peer-reviewed publications which does not mean she did not perform any research.

But that means essentially the same thing. There's a reason that there's a process in place to distinguish between "I did some actual research" and "I just made some shit up and pretended I did research". For all the issues one might have with the peer review process, it's a hell of a lot better than just taking somebody's word for it.

I thought that she was claiming that educating indigenous people should count as research, but only for an indigenous teacher. Without publishing any conclusions drawn from teaching indigenous people obviously.

 

[SimpleDon]

Lorna June McCue could arguably seek an indigenous peer to review her research. Mind you Ron Hubbard peer reviewed his own research

Possibly she should tape record her research? Or does she lose a little of her soul if she does? [/inappropriate attempt at humor]

 

[SimpleDon]

The uncontested facts in each suit speak for themselves -- and that is in addition to the plaintiffs winning their cases.

The term is well understood in the US to mean discrimination against white people. In that clear and well understood sense, it is certainly possible. In fact, according to you in your post, the mere allegations of it indicate it occurs at a staggering level.

I understand what people mean when they use it. Adding the qualifier 'reverse' adds no conceptual clarity whatsoever, except perhaps to enable diversity maniacs and plain old racists a short-hand code word to dismiss any such events as 'not actually discrimination'.

Not to mention that there is no use of the term "forward discrimination." Which like "reverse discrimination" would simply mean "discrimination" too.[/half kidding]

Discrimination is a terrible way to atone for past discrimination. Do you have a better way to do it?

 

[bigfield]

True, but it can remedy evaluation practices that unnecessarily penalise some applicants due to group differences in skills unrelated to job performance. That leads to fairer outcomes for applicants and greater predictive power for evaluators. Affirmative action tends to focus on a shortlist of characteristics (race, gender identity, sexuality, religion etc.) that identify a person as a member of a disadvantaged group, but the principle behind (awarding jobs based on merit, not prejudice or arbitrary criteria) can be applied to much broader variety of personal characteristics.

But affirmative action is the polar opposite of awarding jobs based on merit. It awards jobs based on things like race and gender.

This is Affirmative Action:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_10479
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_10925
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11246

 

[Derec]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_10479
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_10925
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11246

That's what it meant originally, half a century ago.
What affirmative action means today is giving preferences to people of certain groups, be it points to college applicants of "correct" race and gender or dismissing the results of a race-neutral exam because not enough minorities bothered to study for it.

 

[bigfield]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_10479
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_10925
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11246

That's what it meant originally, half a century ago.
What affirmative action means today is giving preferences to people of certain groups, be it points to college applicants of "correct" race and gender or dismissing the results of a race-neutral exam because not enough minorities bothered to study for it.

It doesn't help matters when a term is used to refer to two mutually-exclusive policies.

Here, we just use the term Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), which does exactly what it says on the box.

 

[Derec]

It doesn't help matters when a term is used to refer to two mutually-exclusive policies.

As a freshman in the English class we had a project where two people each were assigned the task to debate for and against the issue. Two girls who got "affirmative action" assigned ended up agreeing with each other since each interpreted the meaning of "affirmative action" differently.

Here, we just use the term Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), which does exactly what it says on the box.

I'd think you'd have bigger problems to deal with than that in your fallout shelter.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't know; I'm more interested in analysing uncontested facts rather than deciding whether discrimination happened or not by looking at the outcome.

Apparently not when you make claims about staggering discrimination.

You live in a country, after all, that openly discriminates against Whites and Asians at an institutional level, unless the institutions are forbidden by law to do so (like in California).

Wat?

Using the term 'reverse discrimination' validates the wrongheaded notion that you need to whether my race is White before you decide whether I've been discriminated against.

One is certainly free to come to whatever illogical conclusions one wishes.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

nm

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Suppose the entrance and promotion exams in these fire departments require a degree of written communication skill that is not justifiably related to a candidate's merit. It that is in fact the case, then minority applicants are unnecessarily penalised for their comparatively poor ability to do the written exams. By revising the exams and de-emphasising the written component, the departments' evaluations may become more meritocratic. This would be in line with the goal of affirmative action, which is to remove unfair barriers to employment for minorities.

Excuses, excuses, excuses. Here's a sample test.

http://firelink.monster.com/nfs/firelink/static/620.pdf

Note that it's multiple choice. The closest thing to writing on it is a few questions that ask you to order sentences in order to make sense. All terms are defined, no training is required to pass this test.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

This thread is not about a fire department in the US, but a college in Canada.
This thread is not about institutions regulating behavior based on race, but an institution refusing to accept a racial argument as a reason to suspend requirements other professors are expected to work under.

I suggest fire department discussion be split out of the thread and any other arguments that have no bearing on the OP.

 

[hinduwoman]

If the newspaper report is true then the Professor herself is to blame --- she knew when she was taking this job that she would have to be compromise if she wanted tenure.

 

[Metaphor]

Discrimination is a terrible way to atone for past discrimination. Do you have a better way to do it?

It's no way to do it at all, and while I do have a better way, I don't accept that I would need one. Evolution being false would not make creationism true.

If someone was personally discriminated against, they ought to be compensated, with money. If that was in the distant past and the person is dead, they cannot be compensated at all. It is an unfortunate fact of life that the arrow of time cannot fly backwards.

If I run over someone's child and paralyse him, it is no solution at all to run over my child and paralyse her. Or, to make the analogy fit current circumstances more closely, if someone who looked vaguely like me was shot by you, I don't get to shoot someone who looks vaguely like you back.

The way to end discrimination is to stop discriminating. The way to compensate people discriminated against is to compensate them with money from the discriminator.

 

[Metaphor]

Wat?

The United States has institutionalised discrimination against Whites and Asians in college admissions, except where they are prevented from discriminating by law.

One is certainly free to come to whatever illogical conclusions one wishes.

It's not illogical to recognise the way the debate is framed by the use of language that separates White people's experience from everyone else's.

 

[ronburgundy]

This thread is not about institutions regulating behavior based on race, but an institution refusing to accept a racial argument as a reason to suspend requirements other professors are expected to work under.
.

The requirements regulate behavior, thus if they are suspended or modified for individuals based on race-related factors, then it is a matter of institutions regulating behavior based on race.